The classification of services under tax law must adhere strictly to specified definitions; mere speaker bookings do not constitute event management services, thereby nullifying the tax demand.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. Since the issues involved in both the captioned appeals are the Tribunal and the parties are also the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. These appeals arise from the common judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, the “CESTAT”) dated 31.08.2017 in Service Tax Appeal Nos. 52881 & 52888 of 2014 respectively, by which the appeals filed by the appellant herein came to be disposed by the Tribunal holding that the appellants herein are liable to pay Service Tax under the category of “event management service” for the period covered within the normal limitation. At the same time, the Tribunal also held that the demand of Service Tax in respect of management consultancy service and business support service, and interest liability for entries with reference to associated enterprise were not sustainable in law.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. The appellant assessee conducted annual Hindustan Times Leadership Summit (hereinafter referred to as, “the Summit”). Speakers were invited from outside India to address the Summit. The appellant entered into contracts with booking agents such as the Washington Speakers Bureau and Harry Walker Agency to book speakers such as Mr. Tony Blair, Mr. Jerry Linenger and Mr. Al Gore.

4. Show cause notices were issued under the FINANCE ACT , 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the FINANCE ACT ”) inter alia proposing to impose Service Tax on fees paid to the speakers through the booking agents under the category of “Event Management Service” under Section 65(105)(zu) read with Sections 65(40) and 65(41) respectively of Chapter V of the FINANCE ACT by invoking the extended period of limitation.

5. The show cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner and ultimately vide the Order-in-Original dated 13.02.2014, the demand of Service Tax invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the FINANCE ACT with interest and penalty, was confirmed.

6. The appellant assessee being dissatisfied with the Order-in- Original passed by the Commissioner referred to above, went in appeal before the Tribunal. While the Tribunal set aside the invocation of the extended period of limitation, the demand under the normal period of limitation came to be affirmed by the Tribunal under the category of “Event Management Service.”

7. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here before this Court with the present appeals.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:

8. Mr. Ashok Dhingra, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal committed a serious error in passing the impugned order affirming the demand under the normal period of limitation. It was argued vehemently that no service could be said to have been provided by the agents to the appellant.

9. The learned Counsel argued that there was no arrangement between the appellant and the agents for providing of any service for the Summit to the appellant. The agents, being lecture booking agents of the speakers, dealt with the appellant on behalf of the speakers.

10. It was further argued that the speakers, being senior politicians and former heads of States could be book